fusing ordinance that is on caption tricks for people that receive public benefits such as a tax boimentsz, etc. prop j required the city officials to monitor to make sure the donors hadn't received as staff indicated prop j was repealed and proposition e waltz put into law the right side digest satdz it desolates prop j and that proposition e about accomplish goals by eliminating gifts and contributions but those provisions will be gnarling tailored to accomplish and in addition the ballot argument in favor state many of

the ethics laws were out dated or confusing and not inadequately addressing the regulations so the ethics commission spent the last 11 months discussing this with the public and city officials and legal experts cross california proposition e is a result i urge you not reimpact any of the confusions of prop j. >> any other public comment all in favor of the motion. >> i. >> i. >> opposed the motion is passed turning to 5 which is environment as a penalty.

>> commissioner. this proposal the idea is to add a penalty for violations of the campaign refinance ordinance for those who are city contractors and so the proposal is to debarment it prohibits persons who might do business with the city and county of san francisco from doing so or bidding on the contract for a certain determined period of time if they were to violate c from or proportions of c from i understand it on a similar provision that was impacted by the voters in los angeles and so this is the general idea the one

thing we'll note we note noted in the memo the debarment bent is a serious penalty that may or may not be warranted but other concerns with the contractors process those are taking a look at in los angeles when the ethics commission considers the severity of the violation and the effect and this is important i think the if effect of debarment on fiancees and legal obligations city attorney's office may not able to talk about that there's a process under chapter two 8 of the administrative code and any violation can qualify as a

violation and again in enacting in the commission pursues this idea one i feel of things we recommend the meetings and talk with city contractors and agrees to understand sort of how the process may work and the so-called mitigation factors motive come into play given i think the example you would give one-on-one won a $500 contribution and that violating a $20 million contract that is halfway to completion you want to make sure there's it wrote a disproportionately effected in terms of violation

commissioners any discussion on this? is there presently a debarment procedure >> as jeffrey mention there's a de bary in the administrative code under chapter 28. >> how does that function who makes the decision. >> decrease certain charging officials like the controller and the city administrator and they will bring to left to right essentially when the contractor did for the city law because you violated x not only are we're going do bar you but permit you from a period of time 1 2, 3 years which you can't bid for

city work this is not explicitly linked to the ethics commission so if the ethics commission pursues something against the contractor like a contribution ban issue unusually usually what the ethics commission is looking for a penalty is purely a monetary product so the ethics commission could try to incorporate it as a term of agreed b upon settlement and certainly, if there was currently some recourse to use the department procedure that is not explicitly linked with a process so hypothetically they could see the contractor availed a contribution issue for example, and after that concluded the charging officials by chapter two 8 can start a

second procedure the result is a the department it is practical and it is possible under the existing law. >> did he hear a motion in connection with number 5 if not public comment? >> thank you. i'm larry bush for friends of ethics i've spent them time with the urban development i saw a number of contractors with hud who were debarred in fact they published a list of people that were debarred from participation or a full debarment it is 5 years limited the denial is one year

it could be a real estate agency that misrepresented information or an contractor or could be a housing authority official i think the department is a serious to tell not use it frivolously but i think the commission should have the authority to use debarment if warranted otherwise you'll run go into cases that did money 4r5ur7bd and face penalty by the fcc and city but then went on to still have city contracts why would you still give city contracts that are worth more than the penalty into effect you've fined them because they

were rob the public so it is warned warranted in a number of cases. >> why is the process that the city attorney mentioned why isn't that the way to handle it rather than through the ethics commission. >> well the city attorney has done it to a property developer here in san francisco and told the contractor they were going to debar you and first, it forced them into a settlement of $20 million but that doesn't - that's a process that takes place outside of the public and didn't see the public has an opportunity to make a complaint and have it referred and plus, it's a two-step you have to have a hearing here and something

that goes on behind closed donors that's my answer. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> pacific islander berry this proposal adds debombardments from c from for impermissible hides i bids this will debar a contractor from a city contractor for a specific period of time this is a hash penalty when applied to regulatory schemes such hash penalties should are for penalties and decreeing from for other penalties and violations. >> we shall move to number 6

oh i'm sorry. >> good evening, commissioners i would speak against addressing the penalty of c from commissioner andrews talked about in my view is the have you you have a volunteer of a board of directors that gets money from the city is the completely unaware their nonprofit gets money and decides to support a captioning candidate and makes a hundred dollars contribution the result is a nonprofit that otherwise is doing negotiating for the city debarred and that's a bit harsh it seems like this

will allow the city upon the recommendation to go after the worse violators if you had a city contractor laundering money to a campaign i would think the city process and you think the city officials will seek the department in that situation but to have it for the minor violation is not good. >> thank you item 6 is slate marital finding. >> thank you, commissioners this proposal this idea concerns slate motivators those mailers you get every election season which support or opposite 4 or more candidates and are

affiliated with participant where the candidates or measures are paying to appear on those mailers and sometimes not theirs subject to their own disclaimer rules impose by the state and technically state organizations and as such file their campaign statements discoloring money in and out with the secretary of state and file copies of their reports with the department of elections so this is just sort of a technical change that requires the slate of our mailers instead of filing them with the other agency to file them with the ethics commission so this is a one-stop shopping we can see the candidate

activity and the slate marital activity. >> you want to make a motion. >> i make a motion we approve that to make it possible. >> second. >> public comment? >> larry bush from friends of ethics just a point of information while it doesn't go to the election department the clerk is responsible for accepting documents from you'll see california and not only from san francisco submissions so therefore they don't have a system that allows you to go down and find out the slate

mailers involving the san francisco candidates by moving it to ethics you have that access it's a observe that disclosure. >> any other public comment? all right. all in favor >> i. >> opposed passed unanimously 4, 0 now we've gone through the items item one 2, and 4 directed the staff 67 as well but 67 is a more straightforward but directed the staff to take some further action and i would ask,

sir how would you prioritize those recognizing there's a fairly heavy burden where should he start and just give me a week i know that the fcc has their regulatory calendar it makes sense that seemed the commission very much want us to move on item one we can draft the proposed language and begin our i p month to month and gathering records we could come back to you with that language in march and in march present a proposed calendar in terms of how we will go about doing this i'll recommend we exclude not only this stuff but there are one or two other things that we permit

consulting stuff it is clear we have to do something in the next few months we put it together a package and put a proposed calendar and you folks can certainly comment on that and we'll make modifications. >> i understand are you talking about a calendar for item one or calendar for the other 2. >> i think all of them. >> a general calendar with a you know projected completion and timeline that sort of thing. >> commissions - >> and follow-up on your language with the understanding that item one is the one it has tremendous priority as opposed to the on the the others we want to see move forward but item one is something additional to see

go away as quickly as possible. >> i fully support that timeline i'd like to see that. >> public comment on that proposed timeline? all right. hearing none >> i figure calendar is a great idea. >> we look forward to march 23rd meeting. >> let's turn to i think its number 7 decision and possible action regarding an amendment to the changes of the san francisco caption finance ordinance that were approved by the commission at the january 2015 meeting the amendment proposed the same

disclosure on smaller written communications on both independence and elections and communications comments mr., sir. >> thank you, commissioners as we said last month the commission approved a passage for c from to standard device the reporting for third party's making expenditures on elections also included were changing to standard dices changes that must be on the mailers that are sent out those apply both the ballet measure committee and the candidates to the so-called election communications where you're not advocating for or against a candidate but

mentioning him or her we did a great job of standardizing those rules there was one omission that's for small sort prinltd steering wheels like flyers and basically, we forgot to put the language in or i forgot to put in the language the subject to mailings and they're the same specifically with respect to the smaller those smaller items like door hangers and posters this is a clean and we don't think this will delay anything it is sort of a followup to make sure we're

all correct. >> any commissioners have any questions or comments public comment? hearing none i hear a motion to - pardon me. >> i move we accept the corrections. >> in favor say i opposed it passes unanimously item no. 7 discussion with city attorney's office regarding the litigation against common sense voters and sf number ten for supervisor farrell for violations of local campaign laws. >> commissioners, i want to note i'll be recusing myself and

stepping away. >> commissioner. >> any public comment on agenda item 8 conducting on whether or not we should go into closed session? hearing no public comment >> this is only about closed session. >> on the item itself or. >> i have a comment about the item itself noimz a michael garcia i formerly was on this body and served on the noiths was president and served on the board of appeals in san francisco and currently on the citizens general negotiations

general going bond oversight committee and more than 15 years an ash traitor a financial industry authority you know hopefully, i only bring that up to know i sat where you sit and understand and awesome the responsibility it you have and the decisions you have to make and i respect i for that i have a therapy about this i also-ran for office and also had chris leo as a campaign consultant the way i feel supervisor mark farrell candidate supervisor farrell had a reasonable expectation on his part that campaign consultant lee would we have a duty of

reasonable care to serve and protect his farrell's interests this establishes lee so far as i understand as farrell's fiduciary i not only violated the caption finance laws but breached emphasis fiduciary duties to farrell to hold farrell responsible for the action of lee is unjustify after one and a half years i'm not sure of investigation did not find farrell for custodial believable but in my opinion to preserve the litigation against farrell in a 5 year old action would be a waste of city resources and worse co-whatever

the outcome of the litigation i understand you're an attorney and other attorneys but we all know if you go through litigation whatever the outcome it can effect our repgs reputation that's the more and more most important fact if the city is going to consider whether or not to through this process and consider taking this to litigation it can do greatest harm to someone that was x-rated and this procedure should stop it up for your time. >> any other public comment particularly on who the commission should go into closed session? commissioner want to express or make a motion in in regards to whether or not we go into closed

session >> so moved. >> second. >> all right. all in favor, say i. >> i all right. we will then >> we're back in public session san francisco ethics commission month to month for february 23, 2015, having been in closed session the commission vote not to disclose the concept of the closed session other than to say that it voted and requested that supervisor farrell file a response no matter march 15

inform the commission forfeiture letter served on him. >> pardon me. >> that needs to be voted on. >> i so moved mr. chair. >> second any public comment? there being no public comment commissioners have comments before we start to vote call for a vote >> all in favor, say i. i. >> opposed carried 4 to nothing turning next to item 9 discussion and possible action on the minutes of the commissions meeting of january 27, 2015, commissioners have any comments?

any public comments there hearing none i'll entertain a motion >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed motion is carried unanimously number ten discussion of the executive director report i have one highlight regarding the statement of economic interest they are due for filing on april 1st this year in addition to the sunshine and ethics forms we'll send out a reminder to the commissioner and instructions obviously if you need hem let us know part of what is stated in the report we with are not

waiting for the state to develop a statewide format instead of moving forward we indicated we're going to be seeking public input on the form 7 one hundred i let's the commissioners let the first meeting is this friday we're moving forward on that. >> commissioner keane yes mr. st. country can you tell us the making of the materials available in the images of san francisco. >> thank you. i meant to we have gone through someone from the language access office met with us we've glutton the pertinent documents we've identified the documents wore to translate and identified the cost and we're working with them to

set up a t timetable so hook up w us we can cover most of the initial costs but i'm anticipating we modestly mate ask for a small supplemental appropriation the estimates i have to get permission from the mayor's office budget office and controller's office to transfer fund and see how much we have left we anticipate to begin starting the translations this year and possible not all done by the end of the by the end of the year a lot of our document are updated particularly the maudlin and guides make sure we have a proprietorship we only have to update the sections rather than redo